Friday, July 6, 2012


Although I have been quoting that which I believed was a copy of the perhaps original Hatch Act  there may have been revisions that clarified the paragraph that I found confusing.

Bernice sent me this reference:  Q.  May employees hold public office?
A.  Yes, while the Hatch Act prohibits candidacy for public office in partisan elections, it does not prohibit
a federal employee from being appointed to  or holding  public  office.  Additionally,  when  an
individual holds elective  office at the time that the  employee begins federal employment, he or she may
continue to serve in the elected positionHowever, the employee may not be a candidate for re-election if the election is partisan and the employee continues to be employed by a federal agency.

Th is further explained by the following opinion:
Candidacy for Partisan Political Office Prohibited. The law prohibits employees from running for nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office. "Partisan political office" means any office for which any candidate is nominated or elected as representing a party any of whose candidates for presidential elector received votes in the last preceding election at which presidential electors were selected, but excludes any office or position within a political party or affiliated organization. The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report accompanying the legislation states that "Federal employees could run for office within party organizations and affiliated groups such as convention delegate."

Under these circumstances there may be merit to Abdul-Haqq's complaint.


  1. This law may need to be voided or re-written, but Abdul-Haqq will never be elected for anything in this town, because of his despicable behavior and that of his hanlers, who are despised by most voters in Plainfield. I think his actions here make him less likely to win any office, notwithstanding, his lack of skills or knowledge for any position. Maybe we can make him the warden of public flea markets.

  2. I would expect a Mapp-led city to be more capably managed, though no more accountable or transparent. Much of his so-called appeal is simply in the context of the travesty currently residing in City Hall.

    Needless to say, Abdul-Haqq looks to be a pawn in the clutches of John Campbell and Malcolm Dunn. On primary day I was politiked by Danny Dunn (Malcom's brother), whose reasoning for why I should support Haqq was that Mapp was a pain in Council meetings, can't get along with the mayor, and Haqq was not all too sharp.

    Obviously there is a crew out there who take us for fools, and believe the best government is the one that leaves the scoundrels free to abuse their official positions and political connections to their heart's content.

    He may have a point though. We voters are fools for putting the whole batch of these con-men in office instead of out to pasture where they belong.